Why throw a spanner in the lobbying machine?

With estimations of the number of lobbyists working around the EU institutions ranging from 15,000 to more than 20,000, Brussels is either just behind or just ahead of Washington in the competition for the planet’s most-lobbied city.

European Voice

4/20/05, 5:00 PM CET

Updated 4/12/14, 11:23 AM CET

The Brussels lobbying industry has grown extremely rapidly in a very short period of time. And, unlike in the US, where lobbying has long been part of the political process and is overseen by the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act, lobbying in Brussels remains very much an unregulated profession.

In some ways this is not a bad thing. Many officials and members of the European Parliament are quick to point out the vital role that lobbyists play in the legislative process, particularly given the small size of the EU bureaucracy compared to its American counterpart. Lobbyists help to inform the decision-makers and it is for this reason that the European Commission has helped to fund Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in order to balance out lobbyists from industry, which still account for around 70% of the total. In addition, many lobbying companies in Brussels have signed up to a voluntary code of conduct which contains guidelines on good practice and professional behaviour.

But one of the problems with any unregulated industry is that it is never entirely clear who forms part of it. Siim Kallas, the commissioner for administration and the fight against fraud, told European Voice last week that “it would be difficult to define lobbying and lobbyists”. As the differing estimates for the number of lobbyists in Brussels demonstrate, no one is entirely clear exactly what is, and what is not, lobbying. The result has been something of a blurring of the lines between lobbyists and decision-makers.

The issue has been highlighted by the case of three staff members working for Austrian MEPs. There exists in Austria a long-standing and well-respected scholarship programme for young university graduates administered by the Federation of Austrian Industry (IV). Those who are accepted onto the programme spend one year working for IV in Brussels, one year working for a company and then one year or 18 months gaining experience of the political system, often by working for an MEP. The IV provides a stipend over the whole period of the programme to cover housing and expenses. And, during the time they are employed by the MEPs, they are paid by the MEP’s office expressly for the work they produce in order to supplement what would otherwise be a rather meagre salary. The result is that roughly half of the salary is paid for by the industry federation and half by the MEP.

There is nothing in the Parliament’s rules to say that this is not correct, and, indeed, the MEPs in question had openly declared the financial support of the industry federation on their declaration of financial interests.

But the fact remains that there are people working for MEPs in positions to influence decision-making, who are effectively sponsored by Austrian industry. Kallas said that the practice was “strange at least”. “This is reminiscent of an old practice and it is related to the crucial question of how should politics be financed,” he added.

Green MEP Gérard Onesta, who chairs the Parliament’s working group on the status of assistants, said: “If someone is being paid by companies and by an MEP, when they answer the phone, who is speaking?”

According to Onesta, such an arrangement would constitute “a worrying confusion between the status of lobbyists and the status of assistants,” and one which is all the more unnecessary given last year’s increase in the funds available for MEPs’ assistants.

The deputies concerned and the IV vigorously deny that those they employ could be confused with lobbyists. Berthold Berger-Henoch, who runs the IV’s Brussels’s office, said: “They are students, not lobbyists. If we wanted to lobby the MEPs, we would find better ways to do it.” But he admitted that this sort of programme “could be seen from the outside as having a direct influence” on the deputy. Austrian Christian Democrat MEP Ursula Stenzel argued that the staff members were “simply not in a position” to influence her. “I have a completely independent mandate,” she said.

There also appears to be some confusion as to the status of the people on the programme. While Austrian Christian Democrat MEP Paul Rübig maintained that they were “not assistants, but people in education,” he conceded that “in some cases” they “could be official assistants”. According to Berger-Henoch, they are neither stagiaires nor assistants, but “trainees” since their employment was longer than a stage but less than an assistant. Onesta dismissed this: “If there is a status half-way between assistant and stagiaire then I’ve never heard of it.”

While there is no suggestion that anyone has acted improperly in this case, an arrangement that relies on the good faith of the industry federation not to exercise influence on those they sponsor leaves many feeling uneasy, with or without a code of conduct.

All the more reason to have a proper definition of what constitutes lobbying and to adopt tighter regulations.

As a group of 50 NGOs told the Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso last year: “Without a radical improvement of the registration and reporting obligations for lobbyists working to influence the EU institutions, there can be no effective democratic scrutiny of corporate influence over EU policymaking”.

Lurking in the corridors of power...

The European Commission is to discuss at the end of the month a communication on lobbying from Siim Kallas, the vice-president in charge of administration and the fight against fraud.

Following this, a Green Paper on the sector will be launched, Kallas hopes before the end of the year. As part of the debate opened by the Green Paper, the Commission will organise a roundtable with stakeholders, to exchange views on the right approach to take. Kallas’s stated aim is to regulate lobbying without increasing red tape.

The commissioner expects that a proposal on a set of rules or a “voluntary code of conduct” will emerge sometime next year.

He says a voluntary code of conduct is preferable to laws, for the time being. But if voluntary rules did not work, the Commission might consider binding measures at a later stage.